Tin Pei Ling Next in Line to Sue TR Emeritus?

Channelnewsasia reports that TRE and Lee Hsien Yang have reached an "amicable settlement". Lee is reportedly satisfied with the deletion of the allegedly defamatory comment and the expression on the part of TRE.

Mr Lee's lawyer said: "My client is satisfied that his requests have been met, that the false and defamatory postings have been removed and that TRE' has acknowledged and expressed regret over this posting. The vindication of his name and reputation is important."

A History of Defamation Suits and Other Similar Actions in Singapore

1987

Lee Kuan Yew sues Far Eastern Economic Review for defamation. Damages unknown.

1988

J.B. Jeyaretnam sued for slander for allegedly implying that Lee Kuan Yew had abetted Teh Cheang Wan's suicide and helped to cover up Teh's corruption. Jeyaretnam was found guilty and was ordered him to pay damages of S$260,000 plus costs to Lee.

1994

An Open Challenge to PM Lee Hsien Loong

In the light of the recent events surrounding PM Lee's lawsuit threat against TR Emeritus, I would like to issue a challenge to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Board of Directors of Temasek Holdings, to put to rest, once and for all, the doubts and rumours surrounding Ho Ching's appointment as CEO of Temasek Holdings.

Instead of wasting time and money on unleashing lawsuit threats against hapless bloggers, the Prime Minister and the Government of Singapore should practice the highest standards of transparency and accountability with regards to the corporate governance of Temasek Holdings, for the benefit of its ultimate beneficiary owners, the citizens of Singapore.

I demand that the Prime Minister provide complete, incontrovertible, exhaustive documentary evidence demonstrating beyond a shadow of doubt that the selection process that ended in the appointment of Ho Ching as CEO of Temasek was made "on merit and through proper process".

PM Lee's Lawsuit Threat is a Serious Strategic Mistake

Following in the footsteps of Minister for Law K Shanmugam, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's lawyers have served a letter to TR Emeritus over a commentary the latter published which, amongst other things, "alleged that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong secured or was instrumental in securing the appointment of his wife, Mdm Ho Ching, as the chief executive officer of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited for nepotistic motives". TRE has been threatened with legal proceedings and damages and costs will be pursued if TRE does not delete the article and publish an apology.

This is an unfortunate turn of events in Singapore's political history and political media. It is a politically regressive move by the PAP ministers which undoes the efforts of the PAP to "shape a more inclusive society." For the following reasons, these lawsuit threats must be regarded as serious strategic errors by the PAP.

K Shanmugam should "Come clean with the people"

In a now infamous letter to Alex Au of Yawning Bread, K Shanmugam's lawyers declared,

1. We act for Mr K Shanmugam.

2. We refer to the following comments that you have made on your website, yawningbread.wordpress.com, under the Responses section of the blog posting entitled “The Media and Yaw Shin Leong” published on 8 February 2012:

“I take the points raised in the above two comments. Indeed, I think the role of the mainstream press in this issue needs to be contrasted with the relative silence when it came to allegations swirling around K Shanmugam and Foo Mee Har at various points in the recent past. That there were rumours is widely known, though as in the Yaw Shin Leong case, no one can point to any proof. But that’s not my point here. My point is that the mainstream media’s interest in the Yaw affair does not look like neutral journalism. “

(Response No 24 dated 9 February 2012 at 23:34hrs) (the “Blog Comments’)

3. The allegations against our client that you have referred to in the Blog Comments have been put up primarily by a person who calls himself “scroobal’ on the internet. The allegations are false and scurrilous.

 With reference to the above letter, K Shanmugam should clarify the following: